State v. McCartney
Montana Supreme Court
585 P.2d 1321 (1978)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
McCartney (defendant) and James Johnson entered into a cattle sharing agreement in which cows, owned by Johnson, would be on land leased by McCartney. The calves born were branded with Johnson’s 3-Lazy T brand in the spring and sold that fall. The profits were then split between the men. The agreement ended after four years and the remaining calves were sold at that time. Months later, a cow carrying Johnson’s brand was found on property belonging to a company which bordered the land McCartney had leased. Believing it was a stray, the president of the company, John Stahl, contacted McCartney wanting to purchase the stray cow. McCartney agreed, made out a bill of sale, and signed Johnson’s name as “seller” and his own name as “witness.” McCartney also drew a Lazy T in the middle of a 3 as the brand of the cow to be sold, similar to Johnson’s brand. Thereafter, Stahl checked with the brand office and noticed that the cow’s brand did not match the one McCartney had drawn. After Stahl sold the cow for $241, the brand office contacted Johnson who said he did not sell the cow, and subsequently began an investigation. McCartney was charged with one count of felony theft and one count of felony forgery. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found McCartney guilty on both counts and sentenced him to five years imprisonment with four years suspended. McCartney appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haswell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.